|
|
Annnnnnnnnyway, aside from Lybia not being able to get their story straight (http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2012/09/17/after-consulate-attack-libya-struggles-to-get-its-story-straight.html) there's been a lot news that the Romney Campaign is in panic mode, and are getting a lot of criticism from conservative pundits for bungling their campaign.
To put it in perspective, Romney is one of the few (perhaps the only) candidates to have his approval rating drop after his convention, by an average of 2% points across a variety of polls. Typically approval ratings go up for both candidates, simply because more people are starting to take interest in the election.
The New Republic argues that Romney is becoming victim of the Obama 'star power' that took down Hilary and McCain. The general public just likes Obama more. People simply are more interested in what Obama says or does than any one else, which leads to more media coverage, and more favorable press. As a result, his opponents start to get desperate, and will try anything to get back in the spotlight.
Personally, I think Romney's failure to win a news cycle the past couple of weeks has more to do with the GOP platform being an unappealing hodgepodge of goofy-ass ideas. But Republicans would rather throw Romney overboard for being a vague, flip-flopping pansy that's playing not to lose, than hit the reset button.
Anyway, my prediction is that despite the calls for Romney to start selling himself, his ideas and plans, Romney will instead go thermonuclear -- he is going to spent every last dollar trying to double-down on his base and cast Obama as the Anti-God Anti-Freedom Anti-American Homo-loving Baby-Killing Muslim that hates your small business and your Medicare.
Thoughts?
|
On September 17 2012 20:51 Defacer wrote:Annnnnnnnnyway, aside from Lybia not being able to get their story straight ( http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2012/09/17/after-consulate-attack-libya-struggles-to-get-its-story-straight.html) there's been a lot news that the Romney Campaign is in panic mode, and are getting a lot of criticism from conservative pundits for bungling their campaign. To put it in perspective, Romney is one of the few (perhaps the only) candidates to have his approval rating drop after his convention, by an average of 2% points across a variety of polls. Typically approval ratings go up for both candidates, simply because more people are starting to take interest in the election. The New Republic argues that Romney is becoming victim of the Obama 'star power' that took down Hilary and McCain. The general public just likes Obama more. People simply are more interested in what Obama says or does than any one else, which leads to more media coverage, and more favorable press. As a result, his opponents start to get desperate, and will try anything to get back in the spotlight. Personally, I think Romney's failure to win a news cycle the past couple of weeks has more to do with the GOP platform being an unappealing hodgepodge of goofy-ass ideas. But Republicans would rather throw Romney overboard for being a vague, flip-flopping pansy that's playing not to lose, than hit the reset button. Anyway, my prediction is that despite the calls for Romney to start selling himself, his ideas and plans, Romney will instead go thermonuclear -- he is going to spent every last dollar trying to double-down on his base and cast Obama as the Anti-God Anti-Freedom Anti-American Homo-loving Baby-Killing Muslim that hates your small business and your Medicare. Thoughts?
http://news.yahoo.com/romney-outline-govern-070837846--election.html
Romney may be giving details about his plan. The only problem is the numbers have been run, it's impossible for his plan to be deficit neutral without raising taxes on households making less than 250k. So there are several alternatives:
1. Romney stays silent about what he's going to cut.
2. Romney flip-flops on giving tax cuts to the rich.
3. Romney raises taxes on the middle class.
4. Romney announces loopholes he would close, which he previously said he won't close.
5. Romney blows up the deficit.
6. Romney appeals to some economic voodoo about how tax cuts for the rich will lead to a MASSIVE increase in GDP, and hence a huge increase in tax revenue.
|
Has xDaunt changed his prediction of Obama losing and the Democrats losing big?
|
2nd Worst City in CA8938 Posts
On September 17 2012 21:10 DoubleReed wrote:
Has xDaunt changed his prediction of Obama losing and the Democrats losing big?
I'm more curious as to what xDaunt and other Republican-leaning posters think about the current Republican party and their "goals."
I'm currently reading Mike Lofgren's book (for those who don't know him, he was a Republican Congress staff member for 28 years, with 16 years as a senior analyst on the House and Senate Budget Committee) titled The Party is Over: How Republicans Went Crazy, Democrats Became Useless, and the Middle Class Got Shafted. Guy has had a behind-the-scenes look of Congress for the past 28 years and pretty much describes how utterly screwed up politics is today mostly due to Republican obstructionism and the Democrats' failings to capitalize on it due to their own incompetence. It's something we've all known for a while, but he really goes into detail.
Highly recommended read. Makes me wonder how anyone can still defend these Republican politicians when they outright admit they are not trying to govern and are in no way working to advance Americans' interests.
|
On September 17 2012 21:58 Souma wrote:Show nested quote +On September 17 2012 21:10 DoubleReed wrote:
Has xDaunt changed his prediction of Obama losing and the Democrats losing big? I'm more curious as to what xDaunt and other Republican-leaning posters think about the current Republican party and their "goals." I'm currently reading Mike Lofgren's book (for those who don't know him, he was a Republican Congress staff member for 28 years, with 16 years as a senior analyst on the House and Senate Budget Committee) titled The Party is Over: How Republicans Went Crazy, Democrats Became Useless, and the Middle Class Got Shafted. Guy has had a behind-the-scenes look of Congress for the past 28 years and pretty much describes how utterly screwed up politics is today mostly due to Republican obstructionism and the Democrats' failings to capitalize on it due to their own incompetence. It's something we've all known for a while, but he really goes into detail. Highly recommended read. Makes me wonder how anyone can still defend these Republican politicians when they outright admit they are not trying to govern and are in no way working to advance Americans' interests.
I pretty much agree. I think a new image for the republican party is not far off, something more akin to "liberal republicanism". basically a more libertarian image focused on state rights, rather than the current conservative look.
|
On September 17 2012 20:51 Defacer wrote:Annnnnnnnnyway, aside from Lybia not being able to get their story straight ( http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2012/09/17/after-consulate-attack-libya-struggles-to-get-its-story-straight.html) there's been a lot news that the Romney Campaign is in panic mode, and are getting a lot of criticism from conservative pundits for bungling their campaign. To put it in perspective, Romney is one of the few (perhaps the only) candidates to have his approval rating drop after his convention, by an average of 2% points across a variety of polls. Typically approval ratings go up for both candidates, simply because more people are starting to take interest in the election. The New Republic argues that Romney is becoming victim of the Obama 'star power' that took down Hilary and McCain. The general public just likes Obama more. People simply are more interested in what Obama says or does than any one else, which leads to more media coverage, and more favorable press. As a result, his opponents start to get desperate, and will try anything to get back in the spotlight. Personally, I think Romney's failure to win a news cycle the past couple of weeks has more to do with the GOP platform being an unappealing hodgepodge of goofy-ass ideas. But Republicans would rather throw Romney overboard for being a vague, flip-flopping pansy that's playing not to lose, than hit the reset button. Anyway, my prediction is that despite the calls for Romney to start selling himself, his ideas and plans, Romney will instead go thermonuclear -- he is going to spent every last dollar trying to double-down on his base and cast Obama as the Anti-God Anti-Freedom Anti-American Homo-loving Baby-Killing Muslim that hates your small business and your Medicare. Thoughts?
I agree with your assessment that the only thing Romney will do is go after Obama harder and the reason for it is IMO simple.
There is nothing else he can campaign on.
He cant campaign on his business experience since that has been shut down so hard by Democrats that he even requested for it to become a non-issue.
He cant campaign on his plan because either he doesn't have one or he realizes that the only way it works screws over the middle and poor so hard he loses more then he could ever gain.
He cant come with a new plan that helps the middle class/poor because then his wealthy supporters drop he harder then a 10 ton brick and he cant win either.
There simply isn't a plan or strategy open to Romney other then "Atleast im not Obama".
As for the Republican party itself, i think Americas 'winner takes all' combined with the deep rooted "traditional voting" where whole families vote for something because there great grand father did are the only reason the party even exists to this day.
The belief that there is no other choice then the big 2 is all that's keeping it afloat because for those that don't agree with the Demo agenda there just isn't another place to go.
If only you could manage to institute an actual representative government. It would be the greatest victory for Democracy in the west in recent history.
|
On September 17 2012 21:10 DoubleReed wrote:
Has xDaunt changed his prediction of Obama losing and the Democrats losing big?
Nope. There won't be any reason to change the prediction until the debates. As long as Romney doesn't shit the bed, I think he'll win.
|
On September 17 2012 21:58 Souma wrote:Show nested quote +On September 17 2012 21:10 DoubleReed wrote:
Has xDaunt changed his prediction of Obama losing and the Democrats losing big? I'm more curious as to what xDaunt and other Republican-leaning posters think about the current Republican party and their "goals." I'm currently reading Mike Lofgren's book (for those who don't know him, he was a Republican Congress staff member for 28 years, with 16 years as a senior analyst on the House and Senate Budget Committee) titled The Party is Over: How Republicans Went Crazy, Democrats Became Useless, and the Middle Class Got Shafted. Guy has had a behind-the-scenes look of Congress for the past 28 years and pretty much describes how utterly screwed up politics is today mostly due to Republican obstructionism and the Democrats' failings to capitalize on it due to their own incompetence. It's something we've all known for a while, but he really goes into detail. Highly recommended read. Makes me wonder how anyone can still defend these Republican politicians when they outright admit they are not trying to govern and are in no way working to advance Americans' interests.
Long term, the republican party will be more libertarian in nature.
Short term, the republican party may undergo some fairly radical changes if Romney loses. I wouldn't even rule out the emergence of a third party.
|
On September 17 2012 23:17 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On September 17 2012 21:10 DoubleReed wrote:
Has xDaunt changed his prediction of Obama losing and the Democrats losing big? Nope. There won't be any reason to change the prediction until the debates. As long as Romney doesn't shit the bed, I think he'll win.
Wait, is your plan if Romney loses to say something like "Well I would've been right, if it wasn't for such and such"? Because that's no fun.
|
On September 17 2012 23:34 DoubleReed wrote:Show nested quote +On September 17 2012 23:17 xDaunt wrote:On September 17 2012 21:10 DoubleReed wrote:
Has xDaunt changed his prediction of Obama losing and the Democrats losing big? Nope. There won't be any reason to change the prediction until the debates. As long as Romney doesn't shit the bed, I think he'll win. Wait, is your plan if Romney loses to say something like "Well I would've been right, if it wasn't for such and such"? Because that's no fun.
No. If Romney loses, the loss is on him. This should be an easy election for him. He has everything going in his favor. Only his own incompetence and timidity can lose this. As for the timidity, I'm not convinced that he can't win with this approach because of how damaged Obama is. However, I don't think Romney is doing himself any favors.
|
On September 17 2012 20:51 Defacer wrote:Annnnnnnnnyway, aside from Lybia not being able to get their story straight ( http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2012/09/17/after-consulate-attack-libya-struggles-to-get-its-story-straight.html) there's been a lot news that the Romney Campaign is in panic mode, and are getting a lot of criticism from conservative pundits for bungling their campaign. To put it in perspective, Romney is one of the few (perhaps the only) candidates to have his approval rating drop after his convention, by an average of 2% points across a variety of polls. Typically approval ratings go up for both candidates, simply because more people are starting to take interest in the election. The New Republic argues that Romney is becoming victim of the Obama 'star power' that took down Hilary and McCain. The general public just likes Obama more. People simply are more interested in what Obama says or does than any one else, which leads to more media coverage, and more favorable press. As a result, his opponents start to get desperate, and will try anything to get back in the spotlight. Personally, I think Romney's failure to win a news cycle the past couple of weeks has more to do with the GOP platform being an unappealing hodgepodge of goofy-ass ideas. But Republicans would rather throw Romney overboard for being a vague, flip-flopping pansy that's playing not to lose, than hit the reset button. Anyway, my prediction is that despite the calls for Romney to start selling himself, his ideas and plans, Romney will instead go thermonuclear -- he is going to spent every last dollar trying to double-down on his base and cast Obama as the Anti-God Anti-Freedom Anti-American Homo-loving Baby-Killing Muslim that hates your small business and your Medicare. Thoughts?
Even better is that out of the people that actually watched the republican convention only 36% were more likely to vote for Romney and 46% percent were less likely. The republican ticket might be even weaker than it was in 2008, when at least the top half of the ticket was somewhat reasonable. Even the Ryan pick is backfiring, to the point where it will probably cost Romney Florida and with it the election.
And yea, the more extreme parts of the party will blame it on picking another 'moderate' (Romney really isn't at this point) and pick someone even worse in 4 years.
|
On September 17 2012 23:40 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On September 17 2012 23:34 DoubleReed wrote:On September 17 2012 23:17 xDaunt wrote:On September 17 2012 21:10 DoubleReed wrote:
Has xDaunt changed his prediction of Obama losing and the Democrats losing big? Nope. There won't be any reason to change the prediction until the debates. As long as Romney doesn't shit the bed, I think he'll win. Wait, is your plan if Romney loses to say something like "Well I would've been right, if it wasn't for such and such"? Because that's no fun. No. If Romney loses, the loss is on him. This should be an easy election for him. He has everything going in his favor. Only his own incompetence and timidity can lose this. As for the timidity, I'm not convinced that he can't win with this approach because of how damaged Obama is. However, I don't think Romney is doing himself any favors.
You see, I think the Tea Party congress and evangelicals deserve some of the blame for hijacking the party and forcing candidates into unwinnable, crazy positions. I think the Governor of Massachusetts model of Mitt Romney would be doing a lot better than this robotic, can't-even-answer-a-yes-or-no question version.
If Romney ran as a moderate Republican, and took ownership of Obamacare -- which is essentially his intellectual property -- he'd be winning. Easy-peasey.
|
On September 17 2012 18:19 kwizach wrote:Show nested quote +On September 17 2012 11:03 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On September 17 2012 10:11 kwizach wrote:On September 17 2012 09:34 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On September 17 2012 08:55 kwizach wrote:On September 17 2012 08:48 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On September 17 2012 08:11 kwizach wrote:On September 17 2012 08:06 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On September 17 2012 07:47 kwizach wrote:On September 17 2012 07:42 JonnyBNoHo wrote:
[quote]
Sure,
Attacking Romney for "vulture capitalism"
Complaining about oil companies' "excessive profits"
"fat cats" on wall st
Saying the rich don't pay their "fair share"
Bullying B of A into dropping their debt card fee
Breaking bankruptcy law in the GM bailout
NLRB not letting Boeing build a plant where it wanted to
The business community thought of Obama as anti-business long before 'you didn't build that' became a rallying cry. I like how none of your non-sourced examples are examples of him being critical of the rich or private enterprise. Yeah, I'm not going to read every Obama speech and highlight every time he said something mean to the business community or rich people. From back in 2010 before 'you didn't build that' : Obama Seen as Anti-Business by 77% of U.S. Investors I'm not asking you to "read every Obama speech", I'm asking you to provide examples supporting your claim that he's made "attacks [...] on the rich, the successful and private enterprise". I did. I don't understand what else you want. If you want something specific say so, don't beat around the bush saying that my examples aren't good enough without saying why. You didn't. Your examples weren't sourced, meaning one could hardly look at the context and verify how closely you reported them, and they weren't even examples of him making "attacks [...] on the rich, the successful and private enterprise". For example, denouncing a particular practice ("vulture capitalism") is not making an attack on the rich. Saying the rich should pay a "fair share" of taxes is not making an attack on the rich, it's being critical of a system in which the rich do not, according to Obama, pay a fair share of taxes. etc. I don't think you get it. I'm talking about sentiment. Little things like negative word choice, used repeatedly, give people the idea that you really don't like them. So if Obama calls someone on Wall St a fat cat once it doesn't really matter. But when you repeat it along with other negative words (other 'attacks') you create certain sentiment. You made a claim. The claim was that Obama had levied "a whole host of attacks [...] on the rich, the successful and private enterprise in general" (and you also said that, according to you, he "doesn't honestly value and respect private businesses"). I asked you to provide concrete examples that would illustrate and support that claim. You haven't been able to come up with anything else than non-sourced examples that do not actually support your claim. If you want to retreat and only argue that some people feel Obama hates rich people then sure, some people do feel that way - and those people are wrong. edit: and by the way, Kaitlin, seeing how badly you tried changing the topic to taxes in general when discussing the "you didn't build that" quote and even stopped replying to me altogether, I suppose we can agree that it was indeed taken out of context by Republicans. Get real. I'm not going to comb through his speeches just so you can have a source, which you'll just toss aside as not a big deal. (Note here: if you say something that's not a big deal enough, it can become a bid deal.) People have been complaining about his anti-business rhetoric for years. Articles like " The wages of negligence: The president has gained a reputation for being hostile to business. He needs to change it." and " No love lost: Corporate America’s complaints about the president keep getting louder" don't just crop up because of GOP propaganda. I like how you have no problem digging up sources about an argument I've repeatedly said I'm not interested in discussing (how Obama is perceived), but somehow can't find any source to back up your own claim that I'm responding to.
Here's where he calls bankers fat cats.
President Obama has ratcheted up his rhetoric against Wall Street just as some of the nation's top bankers head to the White House for what looks increasingly likely to be a tense and combative meeting.
In an interview with "60 Minutes" correspondent Steve Kroft, the president went after what he called the "fat cat bankers on Wall Street." He said bankers have not shown "a lot of shame" about their behavior and outsized compensation despite the bank bailouts and economic downturn.
After stating that the financial crisis was "caused in part by completely irresponsible actions on Wall Street," Mr. Obama suggested that some banks paid TARP bailout money back to the government specifically to free themselves from government-mandated constraints on executive compensation.
"I think in some cases that was a motivation," said Mr. Obama. "Which I think tells me that the people on Wall Street still don't get it. They don't get it. They're still puzzled, why is it that people are mad at the banks?"
"Well, let's see," continued the president. "You guys are drawing down $10, $20 million bonuses after America went through the worst economic year that it's gone through in decades, and you guys caused the problem. And we've got ten percent unemployment. Why do you think people might be a little frustrated?"
Link
|
On September 18 2012 02:46 Defacer wrote:Show nested quote +On September 17 2012 23:40 xDaunt wrote:On September 17 2012 23:34 DoubleReed wrote:On September 17 2012 23:17 xDaunt wrote:On September 17 2012 21:10 DoubleReed wrote:
Has xDaunt changed his prediction of Obama losing and the Democrats losing big? Nope. There won't be any reason to change the prediction until the debates. As long as Romney doesn't shit the bed, I think he'll win. Wait, is your plan if Romney loses to say something like "Well I would've been right, if it wasn't for such and such"? Because that's no fun. No. If Romney loses, the loss is on him. This should be an easy election for him. He has everything going in his favor. Only his own incompetence and timidity can lose this. As for the timidity, I'm not convinced that he can't win with this approach because of how damaged Obama is. However, I don't think Romney is doing himself any favors. You see, I think the Tea Party congress and evangelicals deserve some of the blame for hijacking the party and forcing candidates into unwinnable, crazy positions. I think the Governor of Massachusetts model of Mitt Romney would be doing a lot better than this robotic, can't-even-answer-a-yes-or-no question version. If Romney ran as a moderate Republican, and took ownership of Obamacare -- which is essentially his intellectual property -- he'd be winning. Easy-peasey.
No, Romney needs to come out and draw a sharp contrast between him and Obama. Specifically, that means moving to the right on economic issues. His campaign has come out today and said that Romney will be providing details on his economic, tax, and energy plans soon. We'll see what he comes up with.
|
I have a question for the republicans/libertarians in thread. A bit off topic, but what do you think about the nationwide public safety LTE network that is being constructed now? Are you against it as a breach of federal power (because federal isn't supposed to deal with police and stuff)?
Edit: you can google FirstNet, "Public Safety Broadband Network," or go to www.connectingfirstresponders.com for some basic information.
|
On September 18 2012 02:57 DoubleReed wrote:I have a question for the republicans/libertarians in thread. A bit off topic, but what do you think about the nationwide public safety LTE network that is being constructed now? Are you against it as a breach of federal power (because federal isn't supposed to deal with police and stuff)? Edit: you can google FirstNet, "Public Safety Broadband Network," or go to www.connectingfirstresponders.com for some basic information.
I'd have to look at the details of the project to better understand what it is, what it is going to provide, and what the cost is, but as a matter of general policy, I am not opposed to the federal government helping fund the development and construction of public infrastructure.
|
On September 17 2012 20:59 paralleluniverse wrote:Show nested quote +On September 17 2012 20:51 Defacer wrote:Annnnnnnnnyway, aside from Lybia not being able to get their story straight ( http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2012/09/17/after-consulate-attack-libya-struggles-to-get-its-story-straight.html) there's been a lot news that the Romney Campaign is in panic mode, and are getting a lot of criticism from conservative pundits for bungling their campaign. To put it in perspective, Romney is one of the few (perhaps the only) candidates to have his approval rating drop after his convention, by an average of 2% points across a variety of polls. Typically approval ratings go up for both candidates, simply because more people are starting to take interest in the election. The New Republic argues that Romney is becoming victim of the Obama 'star power' that took down Hilary and McCain. The general public just likes Obama more. People simply are more interested in what Obama says or does than any one else, which leads to more media coverage, and more favorable press. As a result, his opponents start to get desperate, and will try anything to get back in the spotlight. Personally, I think Romney's failure to win a news cycle the past couple of weeks has more to do with the GOP platform being an unappealing hodgepodge of goofy-ass ideas. But Republicans would rather throw Romney overboard for being a vague, flip-flopping pansy that's playing not to lose, than hit the reset button. Anyway, my prediction is that despite the calls for Romney to start selling himself, his ideas and plans, Romney will instead go thermonuclear -- he is going to spent every last dollar trying to double-down on his base and cast Obama as the Anti-God Anti-Freedom Anti-American Homo-loving Baby-Killing Muslim that hates your small business and your Medicare. Thoughts? http://news.yahoo.com/romney-outline-govern-070837846--election.htmlRomney may be giving details about his plan. The only problem is the numbers have been run, it's impossible for his plan to be deficit neutral without raising taxes on households making less than 250k. So there are several alternatives: 1. Romney stays silent about what he's going to cut. 2. Romney flip-flops on giving tax cuts to the rich. 3. Romney raises taxes on the middle class. 4. Romney announces loopholes he would close, which he previously said he won't close. 5. Romney blows up the deficit. 6. Romney appeals to some economic voodoo about how tax cuts for the rich will lead to a MASSIVE increase in GDP, and hence a huge increase in tax revenue.
I'd say no.1 would be his best choice at this point. Not completely silent but squishy. He could say that is plan is a framework that still needs congressional input and input from various government agencies etc. It would be weak but at least honest and a chance for him to describe how he would operate as Prez and get congress off its collective butt.
|
On September 18 2012 02:53 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On September 17 2012 18:19 kwizach wrote:On September 17 2012 11:03 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On September 17 2012 10:11 kwizach wrote:On September 17 2012 09:34 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On September 17 2012 08:55 kwizach wrote:On September 17 2012 08:48 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On September 17 2012 08:11 kwizach wrote:On September 17 2012 08:06 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On September 17 2012 07:47 kwizach wrote:
[quote]
I like how none of your non-sourced examples are examples of him being critical of the rich or private enterprise. Yeah, I'm not going to read every Obama speech and highlight every time he said something mean to the business community or rich people. From back in 2010 before 'you didn't build that' : Obama Seen as Anti-Business by 77% of U.S. Investors I'm not asking you to "read every Obama speech", I'm asking you to provide examples supporting your claim that he's made "attacks [...] on the rich, the successful and private enterprise". I did. I don't understand what else you want. If you want something specific say so, don't beat around the bush saying that my examples aren't good enough without saying why. You didn't. Your examples weren't sourced, meaning one could hardly look at the context and verify how closely you reported them, and they weren't even examples of him making "attacks [...] on the rich, the successful and private enterprise". For example, denouncing a particular practice ("vulture capitalism") is not making an attack on the rich. Saying the rich should pay a "fair share" of taxes is not making an attack on the rich, it's being critical of a system in which the rich do not, according to Obama, pay a fair share of taxes. etc. I don't think you get it. I'm talking about sentiment. Little things like negative word choice, used repeatedly, give people the idea that you really don't like them. So if Obama calls someone on Wall St a fat cat once it doesn't really matter. But when you repeat it along with other negative words (other 'attacks') you create certain sentiment. You made a claim. The claim was that Obama had levied "a whole host of attacks [...] on the rich, the successful and private enterprise in general" (and you also said that, according to you, he "doesn't honestly value and respect private businesses"). I asked you to provide concrete examples that would illustrate and support that claim. You haven't been able to come up with anything else than non-sourced examples that do not actually support your claim. If you want to retreat and only argue that some people feel Obama hates rich people then sure, some people do feel that way - and those people are wrong. edit: and by the way, Kaitlin, seeing how badly you tried changing the topic to taxes in general when discussing the "you didn't build that" quote and even stopped replying to me altogether, I suppose we can agree that it was indeed taken out of context by Republicans. Get real. I'm not going to comb through his speeches just so you can have a source, which you'll just toss aside as not a big deal. (Note here: if you say something that's not a big deal enough, it can become a bid deal.) People have been complaining about his anti-business rhetoric for years. Articles like " The wages of negligence: The president has gained a reputation for being hostile to business. He needs to change it." and " No love lost: Corporate America’s complaints about the president keep getting louder" don't just crop up because of GOP propaganda. I like how you have no problem digging up sources about an argument I've repeatedly said I'm not interested in discussing (how Obama is perceived), but somehow can't find any source to back up your own claim that I'm responding to. Here's where he calls bankers fat cats. Show nested quote +President Obama has ratcheted up his rhetoric against Wall Street just as some of the nation's top bankers head to the White House for what looks increasingly likely to be a tense and combative meeting.
In an interview with "60 Minutes" correspondent Steve Kroft, the president went after what he called the "fat cat bankers on Wall Street." He said bankers have not shown "a lot of shame" about their behavior and outsized compensation despite the bank bailouts and economic downturn.
After stating that the financial crisis was "caused in part by completely irresponsible actions on Wall Street," Mr. Obama suggested that some banks paid TARP bailout money back to the government specifically to free themselves from government-mandated constraints on executive compensation.
"I think in some cases that was a motivation," said Mr. Obama. "Which I think tells me that the people on Wall Street still don't get it. They don't get it. They're still puzzled, why is it that people are mad at the banks?"
"Well, let's see," continued the president. "You guys are drawing down $10, $20 million bonuses after America went through the worst economic year that it's gone through in decades, and you guys caused the problem. And we've got ten percent unemployment. Why do you think people might be a little frustrated?" Link
That's not "attacking" the rich for being rich. That's certainly not attacking "private enterprise". That is, instead, criticizing two things some bankers were, according to him, guilty of: not taking and admitting to their share of responsibility for the financial crisis, and already getting back to big bonuses despite what had just happened. There's no other reproach there. Had the bankers not been guilty of those two things according to him, he would not have said those words. The relevant independent variable is therefore not that they're rich or that they're bankers, but that they're guilty in his view of what he denounces in the interview.
|
On September 18 2012 02:54 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On September 18 2012 02:46 Defacer wrote:On September 17 2012 23:40 xDaunt wrote:On September 17 2012 23:34 DoubleReed wrote:On September 17 2012 23:17 xDaunt wrote:On September 17 2012 21:10 DoubleReed wrote:
Has xDaunt changed his prediction of Obama losing and the Democrats losing big? Nope. There won't be any reason to change the prediction until the debates. As long as Romney doesn't shit the bed, I think he'll win. Wait, is your plan if Romney loses to say something like "Well I would've been right, if it wasn't for such and such"? Because that's no fun. No. If Romney loses, the loss is on him. This should be an easy election for him. He has everything going in his favor. Only his own incompetence and timidity can lose this. As for the timidity, I'm not convinced that he can't win with this approach because of how damaged Obama is. However, I don't think Romney is doing himself any favors. You see, I think the Tea Party congress and evangelicals deserve some of the blame for hijacking the party and forcing candidates into unwinnable, crazy positions. I think the Governor of Massachusetts model of Mitt Romney would be doing a lot better than this robotic, can't-even-answer-a-yes-or-no question version. If Romney ran as a moderate Republican, and took ownership of Obamacare -- which is essentially his intellectual property -- he'd be winning. Easy-peasey. No, Romney needs to come out and draw a sharp contrast between him and Obama. Specifically, that means moving to the right on economic issues. His campaign has come out today and said that Romney will be providing details on his economic, tax, and energy plans soon. We'll see what he comes up with.
I was evaluating the situation with the benefit of hindsight, and tryign to imagine the kind of candidate that would beat Obama given the economy. I think a fiscal conservative that is moderate on social issues could have taken it easily. It's too late for Romney to move to the middle though, he's painted himself into a corner.
So I agree, he needs to offer and defend specifics of his plan if he's going to get the media's eyeballs and the voters' attention back on to him.
|
On September 18 2012 03:38 kwizach wrote:Show nested quote +On September 18 2012 02:53 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On September 17 2012 18:19 kwizach wrote:On September 17 2012 11:03 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On September 17 2012 10:11 kwizach wrote:On September 17 2012 09:34 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On September 17 2012 08:55 kwizach wrote:On September 17 2012 08:48 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On September 17 2012 08:11 kwizach wrote:On September 17 2012 08:06 JonnyBNoHo wrote:[quote] Yeah, I'm not going to read every Obama speech and highlight every time he said something mean to the business community or rich people. From back in 2010 before 'you didn't build that' : Obama Seen as Anti-Business by 77% of U.S. Investors I'm not asking you to "read every Obama speech", I'm asking you to provide examples supporting your claim that he's made "attacks [...] on the rich, the successful and private enterprise". I did. I don't understand what else you want. If you want something specific say so, don't beat around the bush saying that my examples aren't good enough without saying why. You didn't. Your examples weren't sourced, meaning one could hardly look at the context and verify how closely you reported them, and they weren't even examples of him making "attacks [...] on the rich, the successful and private enterprise". For example, denouncing a particular practice ("vulture capitalism") is not making an attack on the rich. Saying the rich should pay a "fair share" of taxes is not making an attack on the rich, it's being critical of a system in which the rich do not, according to Obama, pay a fair share of taxes. etc. I don't think you get it. I'm talking about sentiment. Little things like negative word choice, used repeatedly, give people the idea that you really don't like them. So if Obama calls someone on Wall St a fat cat once it doesn't really matter. But when you repeat it along with other negative words (other 'attacks') you create certain sentiment. You made a claim. The claim was that Obama had levied "a whole host of attacks [...] on the rich, the successful and private enterprise in general" (and you also said that, according to you, he "doesn't honestly value and respect private businesses"). I asked you to provide concrete examples that would illustrate and support that claim. You haven't been able to come up with anything else than non-sourced examples that do not actually support your claim. If you want to retreat and only argue that some people feel Obama hates rich people then sure, some people do feel that way - and those people are wrong. edit: and by the way, Kaitlin, seeing how badly you tried changing the topic to taxes in general when discussing the "you didn't build that" quote and even stopped replying to me altogether, I suppose we can agree that it was indeed taken out of context by Republicans. Get real. I'm not going to comb through his speeches just so you can have a source, which you'll just toss aside as not a big deal. (Note here: if you say something that's not a big deal enough, it can become a bid deal.) People have been complaining about his anti-business rhetoric for years. Articles like " The wages of negligence: The president has gained a reputation for being hostile to business. He needs to change it." and " No love lost: Corporate America’s complaints about the president keep getting louder" don't just crop up because of GOP propaganda. I like how you have no problem digging up sources about an argument I've repeatedly said I'm not interested in discussing (how Obama is perceived), but somehow can't find any source to back up your own claim that I'm responding to. Here's where he calls bankers fat cats. President Obama has ratcheted up his rhetoric against Wall Street just as some of the nation's top bankers head to the White House for what looks increasingly likely to be a tense and combative meeting.
In an interview with "60 Minutes" correspondent Steve Kroft, the president went after what he called the "fat cat bankers on Wall Street." He said bankers have not shown "a lot of shame" about their behavior and outsized compensation despite the bank bailouts and economic downturn.
After stating that the financial crisis was "caused in part by completely irresponsible actions on Wall Street," Mr. Obama suggested that some banks paid TARP bailout money back to the government specifically to free themselves from government-mandated constraints on executive compensation.
"I think in some cases that was a motivation," said Mr. Obama. "Which I think tells me that the people on Wall Street still don't get it. They don't get it. They're still puzzled, why is it that people are mad at the banks?"
"Well, let's see," continued the president. "You guys are drawing down $10, $20 million bonuses after America went through the worst economic year that it's gone through in decades, and you guys caused the problem. And we've got ten percent unemployment. Why do you think people might be a little frustrated?" Link That's not "attacking" the rich for being rich. That's certainly not attacking "private enterprise". That is, instead, criticizing two things some bankers were, according to him, guilty of: not taking and admitting to their share of responsibility for the financial crisis, and already getting back to big bonuses despite what had just happened. There's no other reproach there. Had the bankers not been guilty of those two things according to him, he would not have said those words. The relevant independent variable is therefore not that they're rich or that they're bankers, but that they're guilty in his view of what he denounces in the interview.
You are missing the point completely. When you choose to use terms like "fat cats" enough, eventually the people that the term is levied at start to dislike you.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
